Conviction Sustainable Despite Eye-Witnesses Turning Hostile Based On Conduct & 'Res Gestae' Evidence: Allahabad High Court

"Contemporaneous utterance of P.W.-1 forms part of the same transaction and is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as ‘res gestae’," Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that a criminal conviction can be sustained even if primary eye-witnesses and injured victims turn hostile, provided the chain of circumstantial evidence is completed by the accused's conduct and spontaneous utterances made at the time of the incident.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that the doctrine of res gestae under Section 6 and the relevancy of subsequent conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act serve as powerful tools to prevent the miscarriage of justice when witnesses are won over.

The case originated from an incident in 1982 where the appellant, Lalloo, allegedly attacked a farm helper, Chotey Lal, and his own mother, Shanti, with a spade (gadasa) after discovering them in a compromising position. While Chotey Lal succumbed to his injuries during treatment, the appellant’s mother survived the assault. The trial court convicted Lalloo under Sections 304 Part-II and 307 of the IPC, though the appellant’s brother (informant) and mother eventually turned hostile during the trial.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction could be upheld solely on the testimony of witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the assault, despite the eye-witnesses turning hostile. The court also examined the mandatory nature of imposing a fine under Section 307 IPC and the burden of proof on house inmates under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Hostility of Eye-Witnesses Not Fatal to Prosecution

The Court noted that the prosecution case cannot be discarded merely because the informant and the injured witness turned hostile. It emphasized that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in its entirety and remains reliable to the extent it supports the prosecution's version. The bench found that the broad facts regarding the commission of the offence were clearly established through the prompt FIR and medical evidence.

Application of the Doctrine of Res Gestae

The court placed heavy reliance on the testimonies of witnesses who arrived at the scene upon hearing screams. These witnesses testified that the informant was shouting that the appellant had murdered the deceased. The bench held that such spontaneous outcries form part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.

"The contemporaneous utterance of P.W.-1 forms part of the same transaction and is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as ‘res gestae’."

Relevancy of Conduct Under Section 8

The bench observed that the conduct of the appellant in fleeing from the place of occurrence with a blood-stained weapon immediately after the alarm was raised constituted a strong incriminating circumstance. Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, such subsequent conduct is highly relevant as it has a direct nexus with the crime committed.

"The conduct of the accused in fleeing from the place of occurrence with a blood-stained spade... constitutes a relevant circumstance indicative of his involvement."

Burden of Proof on House Inmates Under Section 106

The Court highlighted that since the incident occurred inside the appellant's house at 2:00 AM, a special burden lay upon the inmates to explain the circumstances of the death. Invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the bench noted that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the deceased's death in his house, reinforcing the presumption of his involvement.

"The appellant Lalloo is the only family member who has not explained special circumstance of death of Chhotey Lal inside his house at night."

Admissibility of Documents Under Section 294 CrPC

The Court criticized the trial court for failing to properly appreciate the injury reports, the genuineness of which had been admitted by the accused under Section 294 CrPC. It reiterated that once a document is admitted under this section, its contents become substantive evidence and do not require formal proof through the testimony of a medical officer.

Mandatory Imposition of Fine Under Section 307 IPC

The High Court identified a legal error in the trial court's sentencing, noting that the imposition of a fine is mandatory under Section 307 of the IPC. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench observed that trial courts do not possess the discretion to waive the fine, as it constitutes an integral part of the penal provision.

"Imposition of fine is integral part and fundamental aspect of the punishment... the learned trial court has overlooked the aforesaid legal provision and committed legal error."

Limitations on Altering Conviction to Murder

While the High Court observed that the trial court’s decision to convert the charge from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part-II lacked cogent reasoning, it noted its own limitations under Section 386 CrPC. Since the State had not filed an appeal for enhancement, the Court held it could not suo motu alter the conviction to a more severe charge.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence. While affirming the conviction, the Court modified the sentence to include a mandatory fine of ₹10,000. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2026